"Site blocking" was a feature in Adblock 0.5 that allowed filters to be applied to web pages as a whole and prevent you from navigating to a page that matched some filter on your list. The main reason why this function wasn't kept in Adblock Plus 0.6 is: preventing you from seeing a page you explicitly requested doesn't have much to do with ad blocking. Also, the way it was implemented in Adblock was flawed in a number of ways:
Instead of leaving you on the page where you were before, Adblock would show you an ugly error page.
The way this error page was displayed often caused browser issues like dysfunctional tabs.
Any filter on your list was used for site blocking even though only a few were intended to be.
Yet there are still people who need this functionality. And therefore I am happy that there is an extension now that can prevent the browser from navigating to certain web pages better than Adblock ever did: BlockSite. This extension supports the same filter syntax as Adblock Plus 0.7. And instead of displaying an error page this extension will notify you via info bar, similar to when a popup is blocked — you don't leave the page you are currently viewing.
The error page issues I can understand. Perhaps those problems can be eliminated (now). If not, there is the info bar. The "what filters should this apply to" issue I can also understand. Perhaps through creative thinking that issue can be solved nicely. If not, a new type of filter rule could be created. As for the "main reason" listed above, it doesn't seem very strong to me. First we should remember that users can accidentally click on a link, and they often don't know where a link is really going to take them. So we can't use "you clicked on the link, you must want to see the page" type logic. Next we should remember that ABP is an engine that helps subscriptions & filters accomplish their mission. As mentioned in the other thread, the MalwareDomains subscription seems like the clearest case where you would want everything blocked. EasyPrivacy would be another good example. Many of the domains that are a privacy threat in third-party context are also a threat in first-party context. It would be good to be able to cover both scenarios with one filter rule. Including the scenario where a link triggers a request to the site you are interacting with but it gets redirected to some other site. As for routine ad blocking, which also plays a big role in shielding users from privacy threats and security threats, how can you (with the current design) block a link on website1 from bouncing you off website2 which serves interstitial ads, responding with a pure text ad html page with a N second meta-refresh or responding with an image file ad with a N second Refresh HTTP header?
Even if you wanted to blow off improvements to ABP that would make subscriptions work better and custom filters work better, is BlockSite a good substitute? Does it have built-in support for auto-updating of subscriptions?